RCBH928 wrote:I see your point, but I do not believe Hollywood took the right approach. There were major blockbusters which were popular world wide like Jumanji, Speed, Die Hard, Titanic to name a few. We do not need them to be action packed like The Fast and The Furious to gain popular world wide. Even movies from the drama and romance genre seems to be fast paced and to the edge with their events.
I don't think there's necessarily a singular "Hollywood" approach. Instead, there'd be a combination of things. As mentioned, sure, big budget movies are usually trying to succeed in multiple markets, driving them towards a product that's easier to sell worldwide. To be fair, many of them are also getting significant funding from overseas investors. Still, little of that is
new - plenty of 80s action films were exactly that too. Known action star, simple enough plot, and you have something that can bring people to theaters for a spectacle - though it goes the other way too. Consider the relative popularity of martial arts action movies with most other non-English offerings in the U.S.
That being said, it might also be worth considering if there are particular techniques or styles that make you feel one way or the other about a movie. Improved technology has allowed for more movement in shots, more of a range in lighting, etc. In turn, that might enable trends, and maybe some of them like shaky cam or deliberately chaotic action lead to your conclusions.
Average Shot Length
has generally declined though there are
plenty of factors to consider there such as genre and director. Action movies, in particular, have pushed towards shorter shot lengths, to the point that ones going the other way (
John Wick for instance) were notable, even if they weren't doing long "single shot" scenes like
Children of Men or
Atomic Blonde were noted for (much less what
1917 put together).
